The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Deaths due to bird attacks
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Hmm, lacks "
Aeschylus, the eldest of the three great Athenian tragedians, was killed by a tortoise dropped by an eagle that had mistaken his bald head for a rock suitable for shattering the shell of the reptile.", or did till now. There must be more.
Johnbod (
talk)
04:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Need more investigation to find additional incidents (or not).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe17:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Scottish Television articles needing infoboxes
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete per nom. The general category is populated by a template flag option, not directly added to talk pages as a direct category declaration — and it isn't otherwise subcategorized by the specific nationality of a topic at all (which wouldn't be helpful anyway, since it's a temporary maintenance category rather than a permanent one). With the result that this is completely empty, and not readily populated since there's no template associated with it.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:The Bill articles needing infoboxes
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:British esports players
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose. We have always divided British professional categories like this. As part of an established category tree there's no need to alter it. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose. It's true that we're not always consistent as we should be about this, but "British" categories should rightly almost always be subdivided into separate subcategories for English, Welsh, Scottish and "from Northern Ireland" whenever possible. The question of nationality is more complex in the UK than it is elsewhere, precisely because the UK's four primary constituent parts are defined as countries rather than states or provinces — so while it isn't strictly wrong to categorize a Scottish, Welsh or English person as "British" instead of Scottish, Welsh or English, it is politically loaded, and that's before we even take into account the need to dual-categorize Northern Ireland as both British and Irish.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Ruined churches of World War II
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep somehow (not merged) -- There is a genuine category here. The full description
Category:Church buildings destroyed during World War II of which the ruins have been preserved is too much of a mouthful: category names benefit from brevity. Recent WP work has tended to make "church" refer to a building, rather than the people who worship in it. Even
Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church includes elements that are still a ruin, even though it and some others have a rebuilt functioning church.
Marcocapelle's proposal would change the scope: (1) an existing ruin (2) church building (3) destroyed as a functioning building in WWII. The category has a long headnote describing its scope, which should be retained.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Former churches destroyed during World War II. The articles are about the churches not the ruins and I don't think it should be only for churches were the ruins remain. There already are a few without present day ruins in the category and I don't see the ruins remaining or not as defining. That the category was removed says more about the bad name then what the scope of the category should be. ‑‑
Trialpears (
talk)
07:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment - several of the comments above (including the OP's diff, "have been preserved" and "are currently") incorrectly indicate that that the category should track the current state of the building/ruins; that's not how topic categorization should work. The category inclusion criteria should be such that if an article belongs in a category (Foos) it should always belong in that category (possibly in a subcat such as Former foos). DexDor(talk)12:34, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There appears to be some disagreement on whether or not to keep the "ruins" part.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ToThAc (
talk)
17:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Support DexDor's alternative which was also my first proposal. Most importantly this category contains articles about churches (which happened to end as a ruin), it does not contain articles about ruins.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
02:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Dungeons & Dragons standard creatures
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This D&D category structure is no longer so large that it's necessary to split up the contents. All of the articles on "creatures" can fit in the parent category without it being a mess. This category in particular holds no value in organizing due to a lack of other non-D&D fictional parent categories.
TTN (
talk)
12:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American comedians of Palestinian descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete there is no indication that American comedians of XXX descent are notable for that intersection, and the standard problem with descent categories: how much is enough to be included?
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:34, 4 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American journalists of Palestinian descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge; there is no consensus about removing the members from the Arab hierarchy, but most of the member pages do make significant mention of Arab-American or Arab media, so this will be a dual merge. –
FayenaticLondon17:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)reply
My argument is not that it is too small to be useful but that "Dedicated group-subject subcategories...should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." There is no evidence that Palestinian-American journalists are a distinct and unique cultural topic in their own right.--
TM14:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Denny Regrade, Seattle
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Viacom Media Networks
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Question: Why if the company has changed it's name to "ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks", you are proposing the name be "ViacomCBS television networks"? --
Gonnym (
talk)
15:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Junior Network shows
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Not sure what was the reasoning behind the creation of this category. The 4 pages in it never mention "Junior Network" even once in the article and the infobox actually list different networks.
Gonnym (
talk)
14:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Here! original productions
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category incorrectly combines two different entities. One is for programs which aired originally on
Here TV, the other are for films which were produced by
here! Films.
Rename the existing category per nom, but purge of the theatrical films rather than creating a new category for them. Across the board, on all the films that I checked, Here! Films was not actually the production company — it was merely the US distributor, which is not the same thing. But the distributor is not generally a characteristic that we categorize films for in most instances, and I don't see this as a case where an exception would be warranted. Some caution should be exercised, because there are also things in here that were television films created specifically for broadcast on Here!, which should therefore remain in the category — but theatrical films which were merely distributed by Here's theatrical distribution arm don't really need a category at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Libertarian Party of New Hampshire chairs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Gnomes
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures from folklore and mythology
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Only one redirect and category. "Gotham City" already exists in "DC Comics populated places" in the same category structure.
TTN (
talk)
12:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Open-sex sailing at the Summer Olympics
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The term "open-sex" is used here to describe competitions where there are no restrictions on the sex of competitors. It is distinguished from:
mixed-sex competitions, where a crew must include both a man and a woman
single-sex competitions, where a crew must be either all-male or all-female
Delete - 'open-sex' as defined above is not 'mixed sex' as defined above and so the parenting is incorrect. Consider for instance
Sailing at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Tornado, placed in the open-sex category; open-sex is not mentioned anywhere and a glance at the competitors reveals no women judging from the names (and certainly not mixed sex).
Oculi (
talk)
09:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Until 1988, sailing was a gender neutral 'open' sport where male and female sailors competed together. Even in 1900, several women participated at the Olympic sailing regattas. The exception to this is the post WWII 1948 Olympics where the IOC decided the events should only be open to male sailors.
ref In 1988, the first exclusive women's sailing event was introduced. Sailing was also one of the first sports to introduce a compulsory mixed gender events in 2016 the Mixed Multihull was introduced."
So the categorization distinction is based on a distinction made in the catmain article. The word "open" is used alongside "men" and "women" in templates like {{SailingAt1996SummerOlympics}}. I suppose to satisfy
Oculi's concerns each article would need to contain a reference to justify adding to this category.
To generalise from Sailing: in individual events the possible sex/gender categories are men's—women's—open; in pairs/team events the possible categories are men's—women's—open—compulsoryMixed. Most sports have either men's category or an open category but not both; and the open category typically is practically all men, especially at elite level. In the article
Mixed-sex sports the section discussing what I have called "open" is named Direct competition. The best Wikipedia way to categorize all this is not obvious.
Category:Mixed-sex sports currently does not include darts or snooker, which are technically "open".
I don't think we should divide the open Olympic sailing events simply by whether or not a woman happened to participate in the finals, and I think distinguishing them from the 2016 compulsoryMixed event is useful. I can't vouch for the sources used in the articles, as I only added categories. Maybe
Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailing could help. If more reliable sources are wanting then I will have to settle for the crude lumping of open and compulsoryMixed together as "mixed-sex".
jnestorius(
talk)11:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)reply